Stats are evil

this is a discussion within the Saints Community Forum; I thought this was a pretty decent topic until it got out of hand. Oh well, lets try this again in a civil manner shall we?
Stats can be totally misleading.
CB's-Two CB's, one is a shut-down stud and the ...

I thought this was a pretty decent topic until it got out of hand. Oh well, lets try this again in a civil manner shall we?

Stats can be totally misleading.

CB's-Two CB's, one is a shut-down stud and the other is a B-player. For 16 games they rarely throw the SDCB's way. Stats could easily show the other CB is better than the Shut-down CB.

LB-Keith Brooking on one side, Colby Bockwoldt on the other. Teams don't run at Brooking, majority of runs are right at the rookie. He gets run over frequently but still makes the tackles, 5 or 6 yards downfield.
Stats could easily show Bockwoldt better than Brooking.

DT-One DT may get double and triple teamed EVERY game, the other gets one-on-one attention. Stats would easily show the wrong DT as the more productive.

QB-If a team is always behind, it forces the QB to play catch up all game. If they are WAY behind the defense will give him the underneath all day. At the end of the day he has over 300 yards passing. The other QB simply plays an efficient smart game and ends up with 200 yards passing, but leads his team to a convincing victory. Stats could easily show the wrong QB is better.

RB-One has an awesome line, the other a terrible line. One gets hit 4 yards behind the line all day, the other isn't touched until he's 3 yards past the line all day. Stats could easily show the wrong RB is the best.

WR-One gets double/triple covered on every play. The other gets minimal attention. Stats could easily show that Peerless Price was better than Eric Moulds. Or a QB could lock onto one WR all game, and miss the wide open 2nd and 3rd options every game. Stats could easily show one WR vastly better than the others.

FB-Stats could easily show that Terrell Smith is nowhere near being even a decent FB.

Stats can be informative, IF all factors are considered. Too frequently they are mis-used to help prove a point or defend an agenda. Stats are for wussy's.

I agree that stats need context. In some cases, such as the ones Danno mentions (and probably others), without context they can be very misleading.

I noted this before, and I\'ll note it again: in Statistics there is a common problem known as Simpson\'s Paradox (after the guy who formalized it, not those loveable TV characters). This paradox says that for any body of data, there is some sub-set of the data where the opposite regularity holds. For example, if good QB\'s tend to have passer ratings over 58 ( ), then there is some set of data that shows that the best QB has a passer rating of 40, if you cut the data up the right way. This means, that if you don\'t know the context or make realistic cuts of the data, you may get a completely misleading answer - such as in the cases Danno points out.

Thus, stats without context are useless.

However, are stats useless? Certainly not. It is informative that T-buck was our leading tackler last year. This, while inconclusive on its own, points us to some interesting problems. Victor Riley, lead the team in false starts; that is evidence of his concentration problems. Charles Grant - 78 tackles - wasn\'t as bad against the run as people made out. Brooks: lead the league in red-zone turn overs - much hay was made out of this.

At any rate, stats are the kind of things that evidence our other claims, and without them, we\'d be hard pressed to make any progress in some discussions.

The last post on the thread that got out of hand was mine and pretty much mimiced the combination of your 2 posts. I agree with Danno that stats can be totally misleading. however I can say this -- a player with great stats is usually a great player its the opposite that doesn\'t hold true -- a player with average stats doesn\'t mean he is an average player. Thus when we discuss Joe Horn I have to say he is a great player -- and his stats prove it (remember he is the one who gets the double team or best defender). That said are there receivers with worse stats that I think are better than Joe - yes -- as I stated in my last post - If I got to pick any receiver would Joe be in the top 3 -- no -- would he be in the top 5 - no -- would he be in the top 10 - definitely.

That\'s what I\'m talking about Danno. Stats can be misleading. One should never use stats alone to determine who\'s better than who. That last thread got out of hand because I used one person with an opposing view as an example. I wasn\'t calling anyone out. I was just trying to see what other people think about this debate.

Maybe this thread will allow us to discuss the issue in a civil manner. Maybe this thread won\'t mutate into some sort of crazy show of manhood. To shadowdrinker I offer this and this :eck13:

Ahh....but it\'s that very theory that could prove that Joe is NOT as good of a player as his stats indicate. Because we scored like, what, 24 point in the first quarter this entire season. As a result, we were forced to play from behind almost every single game. There was less running and more throwing Also, a lot of Joe\'s yards came from late game stat padding when the game was out of reach, and not when the game was in the balance.

That sounds just like some of the crap that is said about Aaron Brooks. And it\'s really foolish to suggest things like that.

First of all, does Joe catch anymore balls in \"garbage\" time than Randy Moss? Or what about Mushin\' Muhamad? The point is ... teams aren\'t letting Joe Horn catch the ball. In fact, defenses are playing the pass becasue they KNOW we have to pass. If anything ... that puts the WHOLE offesne at a disadvantage. Some of you guys need to think things through before you post stuff!

Secondly: Brooks doesn\'t throw the ball to Joe Horn anymore than what other QBs throw to their number 1 receivers. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. In fact, AB distributes the ball to all of his receivers just as well as any QB. That\'s a fact and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.

Joe Horn is a very good receiver and I\'m not going to make things up just to discredit him. Still -- he\'s not a top 5 receiver in my humble opinion.

I said \"a lot\" of Joe\'s stats are the result of late-game padding. I didn\'t say the majority of or most of. I think that, on a competitive team going into the playoffs, Joe is a borderline 1,000-yard reciever. On an underachieving, constantly playing from behind team, he\'s a 1,300-yard reciever. See...all about context.